Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-09-24
DECOY TELEGRAM.
INVESTIGATION BreuH BY THE coUH-
Gil conEIrrEE.
Alderman 0tley Examined Last Night
Tho Name Heretofore With
held Mentioned.

ter began its work last evening in the
Council chamber at z o'clock. There
were present Messrs. Bland chairman,
Powers, Davis, Crqmp; also Alder
man Otley and City-Attorney Mere
dith.
| WHY THERE WAS 30 CRIMINAL PRosECU-
TON.
Soon after the committee was called
TO order Mr.. Meredith made statement
He said the reason the criminal prose-
cution had not been proceeded with
was because Of difficult legal ques-
tions which had presented them
selves. The principle of law was
that if one forges note in one county
and sends it to his agent to be passed
in another county he is guilty Of cut
teriDg" the forgery in the last county;
but in this case the forgery was COM
mitted in Washington. The paper or
forgery remained in Washington and
was never sent TO this city, but only
the message on the paper was trans
mitted by telegraph to Richmond,
and copy Of it was here passed or
uttered on Mr.. Otley.
THE ISSUE.
The question presented itself, said
| Mr.. Meredith. If under such circum-
| stances the transmission of the forgery
by telegraph and delivery OF it here
to Mr.. Otley would be in law an utter
nnce of the forgery. Again MIR. Witt
investigated the question as to whether
the sender of the telegram, standing
in Washington and transmitting by
telegraph to the agent here the request
to sign Mr.. Minitree's name to the
copy of the telegram would not make
the copy written by the agent here the
forgery in itself.
THE TELEGRAM.
Mr.. Witt saw these legal difficulties
staring him in the face, said Mr.. Mere
dith, and in addition he had no means
of forcing the Baltimore and Ohio
Telegraph Company, through whom
the telegram was sent, TO produce the
original telegram here, and without
that he could not proceed in this city.
Therefore he interviewed Mr.. Wor-
thington, district attorney in Washing
ton, to ascertain whether he would not
institute prosecution there where the
paper was. Mr.. Worthington promised
him 10 investigate the law question as
TO whether. under the laws OF the Dis
trict of Columbia, he could maintain "a
prosecution for the forgery of a tele-
| cram. He has never received any
definite reply from Mr.. WorthingtoD,
and so the matter stands at the present
time.
THE CHAIRMAN SPEAKS.
When Mr.. Meredith concluded Mr..
Bland said he thought the matter should
have been taken up by the Council be-
fore. There was much talk on the streets,
some casting the blame on one person,
some on another. Others said they
did not believe the telegram was sent at
all. If the party who did the deed
could not be prosecuted his name
could at least be made public.
TWO COURSES.
Mr.. Crump said that in the beginning
the investigation should take two
courses, or, in other words, it should be
determined first whether the telegram
was sent to Mr.. Otley as On alderman,
and if so whether the interests of the
Board had been affected by its receipt,
or whether it had been sent to affect
some business transaction or specula-
ton. If the latter, when you begin to
investigate somebody will say, What
have you got to do with the matter IL
Mr.. Otley's rights as an alderman are
not affected the committee has no
more right to investigate it than it
would lave had to ascertain, added
Mr.. Crump, smiling. why Lillian
Madison committed suicide.
RESOLUTION.
Mr.. Crump then offered the following
RcSOlUed, That this committee first
investigate and decide whether the
sending of the telegram to Mr. Otley
was intended to affect his rights and
actions as a member Of the Board OF
Aldermen or only his private interests,
and having decided this question, that
the committee shall then take what
further action it may deem necessary.
The resolution, after some little dis
cussion, was withdrawn.
DIsISTEREsTED.
Mr.. Meredith here said that the au-
thorities in Washington are not much
interested in the matter, but that If the
statute Of Washington is as broad as the
statute Of Virginia the person who sent
the telegram can be tried there for for
gerry.
Mr.. Bland said he had called the
meeting to arrange plan Of inyestiga-
tion. He had not intended going into
il then.
Mr.. Powers moved that the investi-
cation proceed at once. Agreed to.
TESTIMONY.
Alderman Otley was then sworn,
and Nh. Meredith was requested to
conduct the examination, In reply to
questions Mr.. Otley said:
"l am q member of the Board OF
Aldermen, and was such on the 18th
of June last. At that time there was a
resolution pending before the Board,
on which | was interviewed that day as
to how l would vote.
"That afternoon between II and
o'clock 1 was asked by Mr.. George
Duncan how l was going to vote on the
Pizzini resolution on the following
Monday, the 18th. He came to my
ofiice-then at I'LL east Main street
with two other men. One Of them, |
remember, was Mr.. Frank Murphy,
member Of the Common Council. Mr..
Murphy did not come in, but stood
at the door; the other party stood out
side. In reply to Mr.. Duncan's ques-
ton l said l was not going to vote for
the Pizzini resolution that / consid-
cred it childish, and therefore would
not support it. At first Murphy came
in, but afterwards went TO the door
don't know whether be was called there
or not. The third person 1 didn't
know. ! have since been told who he
is by policeman"
DESCRIPTION.
Mr.. Meredith: "Can you describe
this unknown man?"
Mr.. Otley: " He was rather stoop-
shouldered wore blue coat and
lighter shade pants. He was a thin
man and not as tall as am"
.Snsllo hoo. onxr 80 4ho